上面的理论？理论与否？

IF 0.8 3区历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY

Norwegian Archaeological Review Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127

Christopher L. Witmore, G. Lucas

{"title":"上面的理论？理论与否？","authors":"Christopher L. Witmore, G. Lucas","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ions of the world they observed, they also gained greater recognition through the replicability of those abstractions in other situations. If it would be overly reductive to argue that archaeologists as consumers of borrowed theory entered into a pyramid scheme that ultimately produced diminishing returns, then it would be equally one-sided to suggest strong theory only led to redundancy. Rather, the key Theory Above? Theory Alongside? 93","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":"55 1","pages":"92 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theory Above? Theory Alongside?\",\"authors\":\"Christopher L. Witmore, G. Lucas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ions of the world they observed, they also gained greater recognition through the replicability of those abstractions in other situations. If it would be overly reductive to argue that archaeologists as consumers of borrowed theory entered into a pyramid scheme that ultimately produced diminishing returns, then it would be equally one-sided to suggest strong theory only led to redundancy. Rather, the key Theory Above? Theory Alongside? 93\",\"PeriodicalId\":45030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Norwegian Archaeological Review\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"92 - 95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Norwegian Archaeological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.2010127","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

他们观察到的世界的离子，也通过这些抽象在其他情况下的可复制性获得了更大的认可。如果说考古学家作为借来理论的消费者进入了一个最终产生递减回报的金字塔计划，这是过于简化的，那么认为强有力的理论只会导致冗余也是同样片面的。更确切地说，上面的关键理论？理论与否？93

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Theory Above? Theory Alongside?

ions of the world they observed, they also gained greater recognition through the replicability of those abstractions in other situations. If it would be overly reductive to argue that archaeologists as consumers of borrowed theory entered into a pyramid scheme that ultimately produced diminishing returns, then it would be equally one-sided to suggest strong theory only led to redundancy. Rather, the key Theory Above? Theory Alongside? 93

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Norwegian Archaeological Review ARCHAEOLOGY-

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Norwegian Archaeological Review published since 1968, aims to be an interface between archaeological research in the Nordic countries and global archaeological trends, a meeting ground for current discussion of theoretical and methodical problems on an international scientific level. The main focus is on the European area, but discussions based upon results from other parts of the world are also welcomed. The comments of specialists, along with the author"s reply, are given as an addendum to selected articles. The Journal is also receptive to uninvited opinions and comments on a wider scope of archaeological themes, e.g. articles in Norwegian Archaeological Review or other journals, monographies, conferences.